<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (11) TMI 539 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350660</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted condonation of delay in filing appeals, citing significant reasons for the delay rather than its length, following the precedent set in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. All 20 motions for condonation were allowed, and the appeals were remanded for further proceedings. The appellant reconciled its service tax liability by paying &amp;amp;8377;1.81 crores, accepted by the Revenue, necessitating a remand to the Adjudicating Authority for proper determination. All 20 appeals were remanded to the Authority with instructions to re-adjudicate promptly, emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned order to ensure a fair reassessment of the tax liability issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:35:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 539 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350660</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted condonation of delay in filing appeals, citing significant reasons for the delay rather than its length, following the precedent set in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. All 20 motions for condonation were allowed, and the appeals were remanded for further proceedings. The appellant reconciled its service tax liability by paying &amp;amp;8377;1.81 crores, accepted by the Revenue, necessitating a remand to the Adjudicating Authority for proper determination. All 20 appeals were remanded to the Authority with instructions to re-adjudicate promptly, emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned order to ensure a fair reassessment of the tax liability issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>